User Profile: bonesiii


Member Since: October 14, 2012


123 To page: Go
  • [5] October 21, 2014 at 11:59pm

    One thing’s for sure — this is one issue in “science” where the truth will inevitably win, because as time moves forward, it’s highly, highly, highly unlikely we could change our tech enough to have any noticeable effect even if the Warm Earthers are right. So, if they’re right, then we’ll eventually see this warming become noticeable, and then do something more drastic about it. If they’re wrong, they won’t be able to keep hiding behind emotional arguments like just calling it science; the Earth will stubbornly refuse to turn into a burning ball of fire, and this fad will pass.

    Of course, a few of them would try to argue “you can’t wait until it’s too late!!1″ but all the actual scientists on their side say worst plausible scenario is noticeable is still very slight, plenty of time to make that call to sacrifice our economy if their theory is proven.

    Really, the latter (Earth not getting warmer, at least not clearly over the long term as opposed to cyclical things), has already been happening, and people ARE starting to wake up to it. I for one no longer give credence to the idea, beyond slight “maybe we’re wrong despite all the evidence” caution I give to just about anything I think is false. Admittedly I come from the conservative side of the spectrum traditionally anyways, but I also trained myself to avoid bias and to question everything, so yeah.

  • October 21, 2014 at 10:37pm

    Already read it, J. But where do you think it “preaches violence”?

    It is fair to say that I should have added “unjust” in there (although that should go without saying) — legitimate self-defense isn’t what I’m talking about, or anything else under that basic category. But Islam does things not at all like that… kind of actually more like what many atheistic regimes have done actually.

    Nothing in your examples shows in any way whether those judgments/punishments were just or not. None are the same as “kill the infidel” (yeah, I’m paraphrasing, to be fair, though). None of them “preach violence”, but actually such punishments were BECAUSE of violence on the part of others.

    And yeah, we know the desperate arguments you’ll try next. *rolls eyes*

  • October 21, 2014 at 10:34pm

    Sure, J, sure. I’m sure you’re a totally unbiased judge of that.

    Meanwhile, in “Realville”:

  • October 21, 2014 at 11:53am


    “anti-Muslim sentiment in this country is at unprecedented levels thanks in great part to the media rhetoric and people like Bill Maher who have been saying these things for a long time”

    Those things are part of it, but it’s just as possible that anti-Islam sentiment (I will not say anti-Muslim; while sadly that DOES exist, biblical Christianity is against false ideas, not people fooled by them) is on the rise because of Islam itself.

    Islam teaches violence against the infidel, and something rather significant happened in recent memory that acted out that violence on a scale that most Americans couldn’t help but notice. To act like this is somehow irrelevant to our view of Islam today is absurd.

    Now he can argue that Islam didn’t mean to teach this and was distorted, but he still should be blaming the “extremists”, not media or Maher. (I’m no fan of either of those, but certainly the violent Muslims make it easy for them to do that!)

    Responses (5) +
  • [2] October 21, 2014 at 11:48am

    First of all, this Aslan guy has been caught in extremely poor scholarship with his book already, so he’s hardly a credible source. To his main claim in the article:

    “‘…what he preached was that those who have wealth, that wealth will be taken away.’

    He added, ‘That’s as close to Marxism as it gets.’”

    No. Jesus taught three main things about wealth:

    1) You lose it when you die. That applies to everybody and has nothing to do with what economic philosophy you use in life! The point of it was that it’s foolish to love money over God, since God can preserve our souls after death and give us eternal perfect life… money can’t. (This is related to the causality proof which shows that only the one self-consistent being can be infinite; everything else is self-contradictory on some level and thus finite. Money, energy/matter in this universe, etc. all run out eventually, basically what the law of decay shows us, but God has infinite energy. Much more to it of course, but that’s why reliance on anything finite is doomed to failure eventually, and basically why selfishness is unhealthy and why following God is unselfish.)

    2) Don’t oppress the poor. This is if anything a REPUDIATION of Marxism which does exactly that; the elite political rulers get all the wealth AND decide what happens with it.

    3) Be charitable. This isn’t “taken away” but “GIVE away”, which agrees with Christian capitalism, not Marxism.

    Responses (2) +
  • October 21, 2014 at 11:39am

    I don’t see how either of those things is mutually exclusive?

    It WAS written by a bunch of fallible authors (the only infallible human was Jesus), but as it was inspired by God, it itself is infallible.

    And it IS read aloud from the pulpit without too much analysis quite often, enough to be probably the majority (so “generally”… although how we would measure this I have no idea; the sermons I’ve heard generally do have a lot of analysis). Which isn’t mutually exclusive with it being true… or even with most sermons being more or less accurate (as most of the Bible is clear enough even to modern readers that it doesn’t NEED a lot of analysis).

  • October 21, 2014 at 11:35am

    In addition to the other good answers, try:

    Whichever translation (of any particular part) is accurate according to sound exegesis and hermeneutics etc. :P

  • October 21, 2014 at 11:30am

    ” It seems so easy for some of you to place individuals into groups so you can hate them all at once (a matter of efficiency?)..
    I am an athiest and I hate no one for believeing”

    Problem with this argument is that you’re claiming that believers who disagree with others must be “hating”… but you yourself disagree with other people, yet you apparently are exempt from this rule, and don’t hate people.

    What about the possibility of us simply recognizing that some others have false beliefs?

    And why does it only go for biblical believers? Why isn’t the old-earther or evolutionist Christian hating the biblical creationist?

    It’s just way too convenient of an argument if you ask me. Personally, if I need you to tell me that I’m hating somebody, I probably am not, yanno? :P

    As for “withstanding scrutiny”, your own view doesn’t use that same principle in the schools, etc. so your argument rings rather hollow. We DO allow (and encourage) critical analysis. It should simply be SOUND, not emotional/fallacious/erroneous.

  • October 21, 2014 at 11:27am

    Actually, it was clearly defined as six Earth-revolution days, or “Earth days”, not “God days”. Being outside of time, God doesn’t really HAVE days anyways (or rather he has ALL possible lengths of ‘days’ simultaneously). Makes sense if you think about it — God was telling the account of creation to humans, on Earth, so he used Earth reference frame language, similar to the language about the sky with birds in it being the “face” of the expanse of space (the side of the non-land region of the universe that humans see when we look up). So, the context tells us which meaning was intended; we don’t NEED to “estimate”. :)

  • October 21, 2014 at 11:19am

    Yeah… and all of these unseen ad-hoc idea (patches as I like to call them) ironically demonstrate their ability to have faith in unseen things… But God isn’t allowed because he’s unseen.

    (And God actually has positive evidence. I would not call those ideas “theories” by the way as they lack observational support, but at best “hypotheses”. But God could reasonably be called theory or even fact for countless positive evidences, and even some “infallible proofs.”)

  • October 21, 2014 at 11:16am

    “Without Catholics you wouldn’t have a Bible”

    See above — yes we would. Catholics didn’t give us the Scriptures… they just put the Scriptures’ various scrolls together as one book, and ONLY because Catholics were basically all that existed at the time (and these were NOT like the Catholics of today… they were essentially biblical Christians like us! With the exception that they made the mistake of trusting mere humans as leaders… which wasn’t so bad at the time because the abuse had not become so apparent and the lesson of history not yet learned).

    This is like saying that because a certain scientist discovered something, without that scientists it would never be discovered. In SOME cases that may actually be true, but usually such progress happens because a groundswell of progress leading up to it had already been done, and had that scientist not found it, somebody else would have (often somebody else DID at roughly the same time but simply isn’t given prime credit because the other came slightly first).

    Likewise, all it took to put the Scriptures together in one book was improved tech for bookmaking, which has nothing to do with the doctrine of popes or any of the special theology that the Catholics added beyond the Bible!

  • October 21, 2014 at 11:11am

    “Passages are often taken out of context, and they history, symbolism, and even authorship are often ignored.

    That’s why the Church remains the authority on scriptural interpretation.”

    This conclusion doesn’t follow from the premise. If anything the fact that humans can interpret wrongly should make you much more concerned about the power weilded by one mere human over “everybody” (in the ideal vision of Catholics of their denomination as the only one anywhere), since “all have sinned”.

    “Without it you get 40000 denominations.”

    I’ve never once seen anybody prove that this is bad. It might emotionally feel like it’s obviously bad to you but that is probably just because as a Catholic, you’re accustomed to the idea of just one denomination being good. It seems to me you haven’t really thought that through, no offense. Or if you had, why the glaring lack of an explanation of why we needn’t be concerned about the risk of abuse by those given universal power over all Christians if your vision were to become reality?

    Let’s face it, the reason so many left Catholicism at a certain point in history was because the abuse got so bad it reached a “break the camel’s back” point. While Catholicism has since improved in response to this, taking away the freedom of choice of denomination would likely just let it backslide, and since we have learned that lesson of history, it’s unlikely everybody will un-learn it. :)

  • October 21, 2014 at 11:05am

    Your attempt to explain why there are so many denominations is a myth; see here:

    Most have the same basic theology. The real reason for the large number of denominations is simple — the rejection of the core mistake of Catholicism which was to place a single guy in charge of the whole church (besides Christ)! So obviously we’re not going to be one denomination! To argue that this is bad is to rely on circular reasoning and assume your conclusion, that having only one denomination under a pope (or whatever you want to call him) is good.

    With multiple denominations, at least the risk of one guy abusing his power to enforce wrong beliefs on everybody is avoided. Yeah, some denominations might make mistakes of their own, but you can go find another that makes less mistakes.

    It’s kind of like the principles of the free market versus tyranny, yanno? :) We can “shop” around to find the most biblical churches, and as a result this puts pressure on all churches to improve if they want to draw people.

    In fact the Catholic church ITSELF has responded to that “market-like” pressure, in response indirectly to protestantism, by reversing several of the more extreme perversions seen in the Middle Ages!

  • October 21, 2014 at 11:00am

    That the Catholic church (if you even buy the premise that the church of the time was remotely like the Catholic church of the later middle ages or today, which I don’t) put together into one document all the various documents that were already known to be Scripture is such a trivial accomplishment it hardly seems relevant. Surely if the Catholicism mistake had not been done, and the church had kept the Word and Christ as the heads and not an imagined-to-be-infallible pope, this still would have happened, perhaps much faster! (Doesn’t it make sense that if Christians had continued to place top emphasis on the Scriptures rather than the word of fallible human leaders, they would work even harder/faster on getting them together?)

    The Catholic church didn’t WRITE the Scriptures; they just put what was before separate scrolls and the like due to the lack of technological advance and economic issues together into one book (to make a long story short). Well, if that qualifies them, what about the many modern translators who do work that is likewise good for spreading the gospel, but aren’t Catholic?

    And that you can find Protestants who make mistakes is frankly absurd as an attempt to prove Catholicism right! Do you think Catholics DON’T make mistakes? The Bible is clear that ALL mere humans err.

    “Protestants often fail to interpret the Bible properly, which is why there are 40,000 denominations.”

    [reply in next]

  • October 21, 2014 at 10:55am

    “Your statement above is an insinuation that the Catholic Church doesn’t believe the Bible.”

    His wording is a bit on the simplistic side, admittedly, but I take it as implying not that they “don’t believe the Bible”, but that they either don’t believe PARTS of it in the way it was intended, or in some cases probably are just unaware of parts of it. When biblical Christians talk about believing the Bible, it’s assumed that every informed hearer understands that we mean “in context, according to proper hermeneutics (rules of language), the literal parts literally, the poetic devices and figures of speech nonliterally” and so forth.

    Basically, you learn FROM the Bible, by studying honestly what it means (exegesis), rather than imposing your own compromises with popular culture (see OT condemnations of that practice with idolatry for example) UPON the Bible. Those who compromise with evolution and millions of years are doing the latter (eisegesis), and that is a problem because it puts humans above God.

    “What it shows is that you don’t understand what Catholics believe. The Bible was put together by the Church. It is considered the inerrant word of God. It is also a book that needs to be interpreted in context, which is often not the case.

    Protestants often fail to interpret the Bible properly”

    No offense, but these arguments seem rather desperate to me. [continued in next]

  • October 21, 2014 at 10:47am

    Your first-linked article goes on:

    “Polystrate trees are the result of “cataclysmic” events. At least, the events are cataclysmic for the trees and plants growing near the river or marshes that produced minor floods.”

    So… floods can preserve intricate roots… but a flood cannot? Yeah…

    Seriously, this is par for the course in what passes for “reason” with evolutionists these days.

    “The worldwide flood, according to creationists, washed back and forth over the earth, scouring it down to Cambrian bedrock. It then laid all the layers of the geologic column at once.”

    Now they’re at least TRYING to seem logical, but this is a strawman argument. This would have happened in SOME places, and NOT in others. Apparently this evolutionist thinks that the global Flood would instantly dig through all existing ground everywhere on the land. No creationist model I have ever seen even hints at such a scenario.

    I have to wonder how this guy thinks that we think the ark survived if that was what happened? Does he have any idea what kind of miraculous extra pushing power God would have to add to the water to make that happen? Surely if all trees on the surface were pummeled so bad they were uprooted, instantly, and the more intricate roots always destroyed, then the ark would be so pummeled too when it was still resting on the ground?

    So, nice try Mot, but it’s obvious you didn’t even read the link you gave critically yourself…

  • October 21, 2014 at 10:37am

    The key point in the argument you linked to is:

    “Besides the fact that the flood could not have laid the layers of the geologic column, the flood theory fails to explain the delicately preserved root systems found in the clay.”

    The first point is a link to another article, so I’ll get to that in a sec. To the second point — the key premise in your argument — this ignores that obviously flood sediments CAN sometimes bury trees where they grew. The Flood explains both the many trees WITHOUT roots (which evolution does not explain well, except to appeal to “little catastrophes” which is merely a reluctant acknowledgement that catastrophism is needed and points toward our side being right, not millions of years), and the ones WITH them.

    As for not being able to lay down those sediments, the link goes to a page that repeatedly claims that the Haymond formation is absolute proof of gradual deposition over millions of years and not the Flood. Claiming this is easy but proving it is not so simple. Evolutionists have obvious motives to make sweeping claims like that, but many such claims in the past have turned out false with further research. Here’s the reason they give:

    “Burrows were dug by animals in the layers of the formation.”

    One wonders if they got the idea for this from creationist points that the LACK of burrows in most layers debunks millions of years. The Flood can have burrows (it wasn’t INSTANT), so false premise.

  • October 21, 2014 at 10:30am

    Mot, evolution’s mapping isn’t complete either (actually much farther from it since you invoke so many evidence-less “missing links”), so you’re shooting your own view in the foot with that argument.

    Science is not a finished set of findings, Mot, it’s a process of research with that as its GOAL. And by the way, your answer is clearly just a stock talking point your side is taught to parrot mindlessly; you make it sound like it’s your natural reaction, but I’ve heard the same argument used almost word for word from countless other evolutionists.

    Nothing wrong with stock arguments PER SE, but 1) be honest that it’s not your idea, and 2) you really should learn to think critically about them BEFORE using them. You obviously haven’t done that, and that just makes you look silly, no offense…

  • October 21, 2014 at 10:12am

    The problem is that the Global Flood already explains the fossils and rock layers. And dinosaurs are explained simply by creation, and later extinction (probably largely due to the Ice Age that resulted from the Flood, and overhunting). By “million year old rocks” you probably mean radiometric dating, but it does not objectively support that age for many reasons I’ve gone over before (and late here so I’ll keep this short, suffice to say the evolutionists make assumptions needed to get those dates because they wanted those dates, but those assumptions can’t be proven and contradict actual observations — plus the same methods used consistently produce inconsistent dates including many way too young for evolution; see the 101 YE evidences page I often link, linked in other comments on this page).

    In other words, biblical creation explains not only all of what you mentioned, but ALL scientific observations BETTER than any other explanation. It just takes research to learn why.

  • October 21, 2014 at 10:05am

    Folks, none of the answers here about “yohm” have it right. The key is that yohm when used with the phrase “evening and morning” and a number like “first day” etc. DO always mean earth-revolution days. Appealing to situations where other contexts select a different meaning from its range makes the problem I call “appealing to the context of one use to justify ignoring the context of another.” And don’t forget that the first day also adds “one daylight period and one night period” to the definition! They were clearly literal days of about 24 hours.

    So yes, yohm can refer to things besides literal days (it can also mean “that time”, or “daylight”; both are used in Genesis), but does NOT do so in the cases we’re talking about, by the rules of Hebrew grammar.

123 To page: Go